Cookie Notice

WE LOVE THE NATIONS OF EUROPE

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 23 March 2019

MPs are 'Enemies of the People' - Betrayal latest

Charles Moore in the Telegraph is a voice of wisdom and reason. For him to write, as he does today, in terms such as these means that Parliament has shattered the faith and trust we grant to our democratic representatives.

On Thursday, I was interviewed by a mainstream Swiss newspaper. Switzerland, of course, is not a member of the EU. The reporter’s first question went something like this: "My country is a democratic country. We always enact the result of our referendums. We greatly admire your country, especially your House of Commons. Please can you explain why it is refusing to enact what the people decided? Your MPs who do this seem to us to be enemies of the people."

I try to avoid that phrase "enemies of the people", because it has the ring of Communist denunciations of anyone who opposes them, but what other words fit?

We need to go back to fundamentals to understand the magnitude of the breach. Parliament, government, the Crown have no natural right to impose their will on individuals - the divine rights of the sovereign having been out of fashion since the Enlightenments. No, we have a Social Contract, under which we permanently suspend certain of our individual natural rights to collective authority. That deal works two ways - as individuals we accept the rights of those to whom we have granted our authority to govern, necessarily at times acting contrarily to our individual wishes. As a parliament and government, they are obliged to comply with our collective democratic will, be this in the form of an election that produces a government or a Referendum that mandates a clear solution.

If Parliament breach this Social Contract, if Parliament truly becomes the 'Enemy of the People' as that Swiss correspondent suggests, then how can they expect we individuals to continue to grant Westminster our authority? Their behaviour breaches principles of democratic accountability for which our forbears have shed blood. Jefferson captured exactly the mood;

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I pray the ninnies, unicorn-chasers, naive credulous fools, babblers, mirror-gazers and assorted half-wits on the green benches recall their duties next week.

20 comments:

The president of the United States is a brilliant invention, and Trump is one of the best and greatest exponents of that honour.

Note that despite the fact that there are inconvenient shootings by deranged individuals at various public arenas, the president of whatever tendency never really challenges the right of the individual to bear arms. That is because he is the people's representative in government.

Unfortunately we have allowed (in the name of health and safety or some other tripe) our government, who are becoming less and less representative by the minute, to take our guns.

The president of the united states ensures that congress or the judiciary never act in such a way. But then should a president make it to a second term, he has usually had all his teeth and claws removed by then, so he is no huge threat to the establishment after his first couple of years... But the threat is implicit.

We have given that up, and the people who have done it are currently known as remainers... or bog standard lefties.

No person who favours Brexit or democracy should vote Lib/Lab/Con in any election until the Parties (rather than the MPs) have repented. It's the Parties that seem to be unable to exert discipline over the issue of Brexit, allowing all the MPs to flap their chops without consequence. Poor dears.

Had Labour and (especially) the Conservatives followed their party manifestos we wouldn't be facing the current crises. In failing the Referendum result they broke a promise to the people. In failing their manifestos they broke another promise. Fail again by revoking A50, imposing the excreable Withdrawal Agreement, or dragging out further extensions will be breaking yet another promise... too many broken promises. No person who favours Brexit or democracy should vote Lib/Lab/Con in any election until the Parties have repented.

If you were to ask the majority of remainers, as was done in a poll recently, they are against joining the euro. They like the idea of being in a warm cozy union that allows them to make money exploiting cheap labour but they are against destroying the economy, as promised in project fear. It is odd that their position in this argument is so illogical as well as being undemocratic.

Oh well the good thing about Brexit is that it has stopped Mrs May pushing too many other undemocratic ideas onto us. I know Guido is upset by what he calls Mrs May’s Tossers’ Tax, which given that pornography is still legal, is a very restrictive move. More importantly it will not protect those whom it is supposed to protect. I wonder if Mrs May has ever gone on line and looked, or whether, like Queen Victoria her advisers were too embarrassed to explain the practical details to her? A guaranteed vote loser amongst the youth vote....aimed at pleasing the Guardian readers who will never vote for her.

Steph, your answer isn't quite true either is it? Swiss chose a bilateral path and still has although they are deciding whether to have a final say referendum soon (reported earlier this year: https://www.thelocal.ch/20180117/free-movement-initiative-could-result-in-swiss-brexit )

Back in 2014 the EU flat out refused any idea of stopping free movement so a compromise was developed. At the time it was suggested this would have implications for the Brexit negotiations (and it did)

If Gina Miller can bring legal charges against the Government to enact Article 50 why can't the public bring charges against them for 'abuse of privilege'? Is there an actual LEGAL requirement that our politicians have failed to apply?

On another note - I was actually surprised to see that organised motorway go-slows were made to protest the current Brexit status. This is indicative of a less-than-well-advertised fact that the people really do have plans to protest the Brexit situation and similarly indicative that such protests could (would?) be far less 'peaceful'.

Constitutional amendments, whether introduced by initiative or in parliament, must be accepted by a double majority of the national popular vote and of the cantonal popular votes. So if we treated the four nations in that way, then there was no majority. Not only that, but the voting there is more sophisticated, with typically age-weighted votes, favouring those who would be affected longest, and more.

All of whom elected by 'you' (the UK voters) and tell me , hand-on-heart, you didn't know what they were like before you put your cross in-da-box ? Anyone who lived through the Brown and Blair regimes must have known exactly what they would get this time around.

Yes Steph, it was a simple binary question, so even dumb remainers could make their dumb choice to remain enslaved to the globalist economic system.You need more years of practice at DD to understand it like the Helvetics.

We need a total cleanout. We asked the current crop to pop down the shop to get some Milk and after 2 years of self preening and arguing about what kind of milk we wanted they've come back with eggs.

The current parliament (not Government - parliament) has proved itself absolutely incapable and incompetent of delivering even a simple thing when directed by the people to do so. There is no point in having a general election where any of these could ever be returned to Parliament as we will just get a continuation of the current ineffectiveness.

For far too many politicians this appears to be just some kind of game to enable them to promote themselves. They have collectively lost all sight of what they are sworn to do as MPs and lost sight of what the referendum mandate obligated them to do.

I am so angry right now. If Guido Fawkes were alive today he would be probably the most effective remedy the voters have against this preening, narcissistic and incompetent bunch.

And for one I agree with the EU; if we can't sort our shit out and agree what we want we should be kicked out without a deal - at least we'd have what the people voted for. Our politicians have made us look like idiots. It's time for some actual delivery

You mean " do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law" ? Nothing in there about any kind of obligation to their constituents. I doubt even the best constitutional experts could agree what 'true allegiance' to the Monarch might mean ...except 'thou shalt not support the Jacobites'.

Swearing allegiance to the Queen means 'something' as failing/refusing to do so is referred thus:

"...refusing to swear allegiance to a political system based on popular consent and permeated by due process. That legislation requires royal assent, through the governor general, does not mean the monarch can defy the popular will. It is the final guarantor of it: The royal veto was last cast by Queen Anne, and could only be used today if legislators went entirely mad and passed legislation that was a monstrous affront to citizens."

The EU holds the 'threat' of throwing the UK out as pure political theatre - they have zero intention of allowing this to happen as the consequences for THEM are far greater than for us.

Why the public believe the BS eminating from the EU is entirely down to the likes of the BBC and other print media that simply refuse to put the EU side (i.e. the potential catastrophe for the EU should the UK actually be ALLOWED to leave) in full light of exposure.

The political shennanigans of our own Parliament is easily matched by the obfuscation and chancery of the EU leaders.

Don't know whom you're quoting there but the phrase and could only be used today sounds very much like an opinion (perhaps 'scholarly opinion'?) not fact. Not being an expert myself I will go with what seems to apply to great chunks of our unwritten constitution: Who knows?! From the opinions I have read, the Queen could decide to or be petitioned by the PM or Parliament to revoke her signature on the Withdrawal Bill. What happens after that is crystal ball stuff....and a genuine constitutional crisis.

Here's your problem..........https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03559/tweet_3559201b.jpg Leave M.P's definition...... : to cause or allow to be or remain : to fail to include or take along : to have as a remainder : to permit to be or remain : let : to cause or allow to be or remain available *******************************************************************Leave VOTERS definition.......... : to go away from : desert, abandon : to terminate association with ********************************************************************